Árpád You say your present voting law contains references to the d'Hondt method. That suggests you currently have a PR voting system. You say you want to change to Condorcet. That implies that you want to change to a system of single-winners in single-member districts. Why would you want to do that? No voting system based only on single-member districts can elect a properly representative assembly, except by chance (and that is rare). James Gilmour
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Árpád Magosányi > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EM] simple definition of Schulze method? > > > Hi! > > I am planning to initialize a referenda in my country to > change our voting system. I want to propose Condorcet, and > want to draft the referenda question in a way which makes no > room for the legistrator to fall back to some ancient method > when there is no Condorcet winner. I prefer Schulze method. > > The problem is that our constitution and its interpretation > leaves very narrow place to draft a referenda question. The > question should be clear, and it should be simple as well. > The criteria so far executed by our Constitutional Court are > the following: > > There should be one question. - I need to state multiple > criteria, and some may interpret them as several questions. I > can reason that the question is one, which refers to a set of > criteria which would be meaningless without each other. > > There should be no specialized word. - "The average voter > should be able to understand." So "Do you agree to vote our > parliament members with a cloneproof Condorcet method which > always produces a winner?" won't work. > > There should be no explanations of terms and ideas in the > question. - "The average voter should be able to understand." > Constitutional Court ruled that ideas and terms which need > explanations are beyond that. > > It should be easily understandable. - "The average voter > should be able to understand." Well, our whole constitution > is built on the assumption that citizens are dumb. There > might be some place here as I can point to the current text > of voting law which contains D'Hont method as a small piece > of the description of our voting system, and a small set of > criteria is much simpler than that. > > It should be definitive. - "Would you like a voting system > which reflects the different views of voters better, and the > winnig strategy for candidates is to cooperate" would be > rejected because there are so many interpretation of it. > > I think the right way would be draft the question with simple > words through criteria which should be satisfied. Can you > help me by proposing such simple definitions of key criteria? > Specifically I could not find a criteria which would not > contain "beat-path" and be specific to Schulze. > > I am sorry to ask the impossible, but we are in a dire need here. > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.53/2154 - Release Date: 06/04/09 05:53:00 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
